Well as we have discussed, if you can't persuade, if you can't reach critical mass, then there's no point in being correct. Declaring everyone else is wrong and an idiot might make one feel morally superior but stinks as the basis of a governing coalition.

Leaders who can't admit they're wrong and make the changes necessary to set things right aren't fit to govern in the first place and should not be supported.

Leaders who can't admit they're wrong and make the changes necessary to set things right aren't fit to govern in the first place and should not be supported.

It's nice to believe that someone completely principled would be elected but the reality is that obviously Americans are not principled enough to elect such a person. Much like Ron Paul, they still want that money to come back to their district. So they elect a guy who swears he hates earmarks but then he inserts them and votes against them.

That's gaming the system, not changing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Either both sides are intellectually dishonest, or neither of you are. You can't have it both ways.

I can have it both ways. There can be right and wrong positions and one party can be 75-80% right and a percentage wrong and much like how your spouse may not have checked every box on some mythical lists, you accept it, do your best, and deal.

If the party that 100% supports what I believe can affect 0% change then that is worthless to me. There's not a single thing I own or use that meets 100% of whatever criteria I desire because everything in life has tradeoffs. There are things I dislike or would change even about my iPhone and Macbook Pro, about the house I live in, about my car, you name it.

That is the nature of the world. You find a solution that helps most people and that most people can support and you take your compromises.

It's nice to believe that someone completely principled would be elected but the reality is that obviously Americans are not principled enough to elect such a person. Much like Ron Paul, they still want that money to come back to their district. So they elect a guy who swears he hates earmarks but then he inserts them and votes against them.

That's gaming the system, not changing it.

Exactly. Gaming the system is not changing it. I'm glad we agree. I vote for the guy who does have to game the system to get his constituents their fair share of the money that's been stolen from them, but really wants to change the system altogether.

Everyone else is an empty suit.

Quote:

I can have it both ways. There can be right and wrong positions and one party can be 75-80% right and a percentage wrong and much like how your spouse may not have checked every box on some mythical lists, you accept it, do your best, and deal.

If the party that 100% supports what I believe can affect 0% change then that is worthless to me. There's not a single thing I own or use that meets 100% of whatever criteria I desire because everything in life has tradeoffs. There are things I dislike or would change even about my iPhone and Macbook Pro, about the house I live in, about my car, you name it.

That is the nature of the world. You find a solution that helps most people and that most people can support and you take your compromises.

I completely understand your view. But it's ultimately a pointless view if the 15%-20% wrong undermines the 75%-80% right to eventually lead to 100% wrong. Which is exactly what is happening.

Either both sides are intellectually dishonest, or neither of you are. You can't have it both ways.

Not true. My belief that Iraq had WMD was not motivated by partisanship. It was motivated by the information I had. That included:

--Iraq's undeniable failure to verifiably disarm after the first gulf war.

--Iraq's undeniable pursuit of WMD up through at least 1998, during Desert Fox.

--Intelligence judged to be reliable by the world's major intel agencies.

--Iraq's past use of WMD.

It turns out that information, for whatever reason, was inaccurate. But it was still the basis for my judgement, not some blind faith in Bush.

As for Syria, I am not attacking the Obama administration for lying. The thread title is tongue-in-cheek. I have no reason to think that admin is lying. However, if the left had any intellectual honesty, they would be even more concerned about the Obama admin's claim, since the previous claim was proven false. Of course, they aren't concerned at all, because George Bush was a white Republican oil man who was out to make all his other oil men friends rich. Oh, and they are intellectually and morally bankrupt. I almost forgot that part.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Not true. My belief that Iraq had WMD was not motivated by partisanship. It was motivated by the information I had. That included:

--Iraq's undeniable failure to verifiably disarm after the first gulf war.

--Iraq's undeniable pursuit of WMD up through at least 1998, during Desert Fox.

--Intelligence judged to be reliable by the world's major intel agencies.

--Iraq's past use of WMD.

It turns out that information, for whatever reason, was inaccurate. But it was still the basis for my judgement, not some blind faith in Bush.

As for Syria, I am not attacking the Obama administration for lying. The thread title is tongue-in-cheek. I have no reason to think that admin is lying. However, if the left had any intellectual honesty, they would be even more concerned about the Obama admin's claim, since the previous claim was proven false. Of course, they aren't concerned at all, because George Bush was a white Republican oil man who was out to make all his other oil men friends rich.

And what you continue to ignore is the fact that we helped Saddam Hussein get into power in the first place. Oh yeah, and the fact that Iraq did not attack us.

It doesn't matter whether the Obama Administration is lying or not. Syria has not attacked us. That much is obvious.

Exactly. Gaming the system is not changing it. I'm glad we agree. I vote for the guy who does have to game the system to get his constituents their fair share of the money that's been stolen from them, but really wants to change the system altogether.

Everyone else is an empty suit.

I completely understand your view. But it's ultimately a pointless view if the 15%-20% wrong undermines the 75%-80% right to eventually lead to 100% wrong. Which is exactly what is happening.

Get everyone their "fair share" of what has been stolen from them and takes questionable actions while really having good intentions............

Of course there's a difference. Who stole the money in the first place?

The very same organization that pays Ron Paul his salary. The very same organization that helped Saddam Hussein and later change their mind about him.

You can't bludgeon someone with their own past and not undermine your own present. If the parties are evil, then the people who belong to them, like Ron Paul, are part of the problem. They aren't exempted.

The very same organization that pays Ron Paul his salary. The very same organization that helped Saddam Hussein and later change their mind about him.

You can't bludgeon someone with their own past and not undermine your own present. If the parties are evil, then the people who belong to them, like Ron Paul, are part of the problem. They aren't exempted.

And Ron Paul is very frugal with the funds given to him and every year he gives back to the Treasury what he doesn't use.

I've never declared Ron Paul a saint. Nobody has. It's the supporters of less principled candidates like Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum that constantly set up that straw man because they know that Ron Paul is the most consistent, and it's the only way they can justify not voting for him.

You think if you can convince his supporters that Ron Paul is not perfect, they'll suddenly abandon him and vote for an establishment candidate. But what you fail to understand is that we know he's not perfect. He's the first one to admit he's not perfect. At the end of the day we don't support him because he's the most consistent or principled. It's because he's genuine. And we're tired of the snake oil salesmen being held up before us our only choices.

And Ron Paul is very frugal with the funds given to him and every year he gives back to the Treasury what he doesn't use.

Ron Paul is a bit disingenuous about his earmarks policies, though. He adds stuff for his own district to bills that he then votes against. He knows the bills will pass but he still gets to claim that his voting record is clean. That's pretty sleazy.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Ron Paul is a bit disingenuous about his earmarks policies, though. He adds stuff for his own district to bills that he then votes against. He knows the bills will pass but he still gets to claim that his voting record is clean. That's pretty sleazy.

Right, it's OK if he uses earmarks because the money is specifically assigned to something. Except he's still taking government money and claiming he has voted against all earmarks. He gets the benefits with the clean voting record. I understand his reasoning, but it is still disingenuous. To the average voter who will not delve into the nuance, it's wholly misleading.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Right, it's OK if he uses earmarks because the money is specifically assigned to something. Except he's still taking government money and claiming he has voted against all earmarks. He gets the benefits with the clean voting record. I understand his reasoning, but it is still disingenuous. To the average voter who will not delve into the nuance, it's wholly misleading.

But the issue is not about the practice of earmarking itself, it's about additional government spending. Congress is supposed to earmark money and account for how it is spent. If you read the link I posted, Ron Paul actually argues in favor of MORE earmarks.

Yeah, except, he's also for small government and fewer taxes. Taking a huge amount of government money for his district seems to run counter to that ideal.

Just like Ayn Rand accepting SSI seemed contrary to her ideals, right?

This was her explanation:

"...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own moneyand they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

And Ron Paul is very frugal with the funds given to him and every year he gives back to the Treasury what he doesn't use.

I've never declared Ron Paul a saint. Nobody has. It's the supporters of less principled candidates like Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum that constantly set up that straw man because they know that Ron Paul is the most consistent, and it's the only way they can justify not voting for him.

You think if you can convince his supporters that Ron Paul is not perfect, they'll suddenly abandon him and vote for an establishment candidate. But what you fail to understand is that we know he's not perfect. He's the first one to admit he's not perfect. At the end of the day we don't support him because he's the most consistent or principled. It's because he's genuine. And we're tired of the snake oil salesmen being held up before us our only choices.

I've not in any form or fashion claimed Ron Paul is a saint. However I apply labels and words when they are properly defined. If someone has been in Washington D.C. since the late 70's, they are not an outsider. They are in fact the establishment. They may be consistent but if change hasn't resulted, then all they've been consistent at is being ineffective and unpersuasive. A snake oil salesman is someone who promises the cure. Ron Paul hasn't cured anything. The best you can claim is that he steals back stolen money using procedures he opposes in principle, but applies in practice.

That doesn't change anything. Looking at actions is how I knew Obama wouldn't be any different than Bush on foreign affairs. Looking at Paul, I can see a man who takes a party name he claims to loathe 50% of the time. I see a man who argues for and against earmarks and refuses to touch the big problems, aka entitlements.

That isn't going to change a thing. He's on your tandem bike. He's been on it for 30 years.

I've not in any form or fashion claimed Ron Paul is a saint. However I apply labels and words when they are properly defined. If someone has been in Washington D.C. since the late 70's, they are not an outsider. They are in fact the establishment. They may be consistent but if change hasn't resulted, then all they've been consistent at is being ineffective and unpersuasive. A snake oil salesman is someone who promises the cure. Ron Paul hasn't cured anything. The best you can claim is that he steals back stolen money using procedures he opposes in principle, but applies in practice.

That doesn't change anything. Looking at actions is how I knew Obama wouldn't be any different than Bush on foreign affairs. Looking at Paul, I can see a man who takes a party name he claims to loathe 50% of the time. I see a man who argues for and against earmarks and refuses to touch the big problems, aka entitlements.

That isn't going to change a thing. He's on your tandem bike. He's been on it for 30 years.

And regardless of all of that, he's the only one saying we should slam on the brakes and change direction. Newt and the establishment's solution is to get a bigger bike.

However I apply labels and words when they are properly defined. If someone has been in Washington D.C. since the late 70's, they are not an outsider. They are in fact the establishment.

To be fair, I think a reasonable argument can be made about the definitions of insider vs. outside and "the establishment" that do not include someone who's been there a long time. To a reasonable degree these are short-hand terms to describe more a of a mindset than anything else sorta like the phrase "status quo." I don't think it's unfair to argue that one can be a part of an organization for a long time but not be of the same philosophy and mindset of 99% of the other in there (including those who have come and gone.)

As to what Ron Paul has changed or accomplished, I think the biggest thing he's been able to do is to elevate subjects (e.g., the Fed, inflation, gold, warfare state, etc.) that have not been discussed as much as they seem be today.

I don't think Ron Paul will be nominated or win the Presidency. I don't think he cares. The country just isn't "there" yet. But if his legacy is to have elevated discussion about some important but often overlooked or dismissed subjects (e.g., the Fed, monetary and banking freedom, significantly reducing or eliminating overseas US military presence, constitutionality of various things people don't give a second thought to, etc.) then he'll have hopefully started the ball rolling for others to continue past his lifetime.

And regardless of all of that, he's the only one saying we should slam on the brakes and change direction. Newt and the establishment's solution is to get a bigger bike.

I think I'll go with the solution that makes sense.

No he's the one who says we ought to change directions but then earmarks a more comfy seat on the bike and a small air horn which he then votes against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

To be fair, I think a reasonable argument can be made about the definitions of insider vs. outside and "the establishment" that do not include someone who's been there a long time. To a reasonable degree these are short-hand terms to describe more a of a mindset than anything else sorta like the phrase "status quo." I don't think it's unfair to argue that one can be a part of an organization for a long time but not be of the same philosophy and mindset of 99% of the other in there (including those who have come and gone.)

As to what Ron Paul has changed or accomplished, I think the biggest thing he's been able to do is to elevate subjects (e.g., the Fed, inflation, gold, warfare state, etc.) that have not been discussed as much as they seem be today.

I don't think Ron Paul will be nominated or win the Presidency. I don't think he cares. The country just isn't "there" yet. But if his legacy is to have elevated discussion about some important but often overlooked or dismissed subjects (e.g., the Fed, monetary and banking freedom, significantly reducing or eliminating overseas US military presence, constitutionality of various things people don't give a second thought to, etc.) then he'll have hopefully started the ball rolling for others to continue past his lifetime.

Perhaps I run in different circles but the Fed, inflation, gold warfare state, etc have been discussed for very long periods of time. Pat Buchanan ran against George H.W. Bush along many of those planks, especially against America as empire. (such things like taking care of home made him racist per Dems and Republicans) Ross Perot was about sound budgeting. Some of this is the passage of time because as an example, most people didn't argue to go back to gold standard until Nixon took us off it. Though even before then it obviously was being undermined for decades.

Perhaps I run in different circles but the Fed, inflation, gold warfare state, etc have been discussed for very long periods of time. Pat Buchanan ran against George H.W. Bush along many of those planks, especially against America as empire. (such things like taking care of home made him racist per Dems and Republicans) Ross Perot was about sound budgeting. Some of this is the passage of time because as an example, most people didn't argue to go back to gold standard until Nixon took us off it. Though even before then it obviously was being undermined for decades.

I think it's more a matter of him causing some of these things to be discussed in more mainstream circles.

And what you continue to ignore is the fact that we helped Saddam Hussein get into power in the first place. Oh yeah, and the fact that Iraq did not attack us.

It doesn't matter whether the Obama Administration is lying or not. Syria has not attacked us. That much is obvious.

What does any of that have to do with the government making claims on a nation having WMD? I'm not advocating military action, nor attempting to re-litigate the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm simply asking why the Obama admin gets a pass on stating that Syria has WMD?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What does any of that have to do with the government making claims on a nation having WMD? I'm not advocating military action, nor attempting to re-litigate the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm simply asking why the Obama admin gets a pass on stating that Syria has WMD?

He gets a pass because the liberals clearly don't give a crap about his actions. His actions reflect the desire for a centrally planned government and that's not just true of this country but of the world overall.

This is why neocon is old liberal. They only gave a crap about Iraq to try to get Bush out of office but during the same timeframe were screaming for troops to go to Darfur and take action there. Obama has clearly taken action half a dozen ways and they don't give a crap. Clinton had loads of military action and they didn't care then either. Liberals can't be hypocrites because it would assume some core belief. They have none and manipulation is their default position.

No, I'm saying you're intellectually dishonest for not slamming Obama and his administration over Syria's WMD.

Stop lying! Seriously, stop it.

I AM slamming Obama on this. Bush deserves life imprisonment and Obama deserves the same if they lied. I think both should be investigated. The pro-war bullshit has to stop even if it sullies Obama's name and record.

What does any of that have to do with the government making claims on a nation having WMD? I'm not advocating military action, nor attempting to re-litigate the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm simply asking why the Obama admin gets a pass on stating that Syria has WMD?

Who says Syria has WMD? What would you want us to do in this case if they did if you were president?

Why would you claim liberals are not pro-war? They are only pacifists when it suits their agenda. Much like how feminists don't give a crap about how a terrible a man treats a woman when his name is Clinton, Edwards or Kennedy, it is clear that liberals don't care about war if it is in Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.

WWII, Korea, Vietnam.....which of these were started by Republicans? The Truman doctrine started the cold war.

No one is insane to suggest that the political left likes blood or war. History shows it more than true.

Why would you claim liberals are not pro-war? They are only pacifists when it suits their agenda. Much like how feminists don't give a crap about how a terrible a man treats a woman when his name is Clinton, Edwards or Kennedy, it is clear that liberals don't care about war if it is in Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.

WWII, Korea, Vietnam.....which of these were started by Republicans? The Truman doctrine started the cold war.

No one is insane to suggest that the political left likes blood or war. History shows it more than true.

All this proves is that those politicians are not Liberal, exactly as SJO has pointed out. Dennis Kucinich is a Liberal.

All this proves is that those politicians are not Liberal, exactly as SJO has pointed out. Dennis Kucinich is a Liberal.

Bullshit. SJO, yourself and others switch labels whenever it suits you. The entire leftist political philosophy is nothing more than a clever ruse to justify and elevate theft and control. Obama was a practically a pacifist, ran as an anti-war candidate and won a peace prize all until he had to govern.

So basically by your reasoning, liberals are only liberals until they get some actual power at which point they turn into evil assholes.

And yet you'll vote for Obama over any other candidate out there this year.

Actually, since my state of residence is California and there's no way someone worse than Obama (meaning every Republican candidate including Romney) can win in California, I actually think I won't. I'll make a pledge right here. I'm not voting for Obama. Happy now? You can be certain, however, that I'm not voting for Romney or Santorum or whoever is the antipublican candidate.

Actually, since my state of residence is California and there's no way someone worse than Obama (meaning every Republican candidate including Romney) can win in California, I actually think I won't. I'll make a pledge right here. I'm not voting for Obama. Happy now? You can be certain, however, that I'm not voting for Romney or Santorum or whoever is the antipublican candidate.

If Paul runs third party (not bloody likely, I know), I may vote for him. If not, then a write-in for Kucinich. Or maybe a young Democratic Congressman supported by PDA, to perhaps inspire a future run.

To your credit, you are now. But it took a thread started by a conservative to do it. The point is that we'd have ten anti-Bush threads by now if it were him.

You've hit the nail on the head. There wouldn't just be token disapproval. There'd be actions taken.

Quote:

Even if it was proven either was lying (neither was/is, in my judgement), that's not an impeachable much less criminal offense.

If sworn then it obviously that would be different.

Quote:

And yet you'll vote for Obama over any other candidate out there this year.

I concur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Actually, since my state of residence is California and there's no way someone worse than Obama (meaning every Republican candidate including Romney) can win in California, I actually think I won't. I'll make a pledge right here. I'm not voting for Obama. Happy now? You can be certain, however, that I'm not voting for Romney or Santorum or whoever is the antipublican candidate.

That's easy to say now. You presume the stakes are already predetermined. You can snap a pick of your nice absentee ballot when the time comes.

<forehead slap> I'm not saying it's credible. I really think he doesn't know which entity or person made the claim!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Actually, since my state of residence is California and there's no way someone worse than Obama (meaning every Republican candidate including Romney) can win in California, I actually think I won't. I'll make a pledge right here. I'm not voting for Obama. Happy now? You can be certain, however, that I'm not voting for Romney or Santorum or whoever is the antipublican candidate.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

That's nonsense.

You've hit the nail on the head. There wouldn't just be token disapproval. There'd be actions taken.

Exactly.

Quote:

If sworn then it obviously that would be different.

Yes...then it would be obstruction or perjury. Both are impeachable offenses.

Quote:

I concur.

That's easy to say now. You presume the stakes are already predetermined. You can snap a pick of your nice absentee ballot when the time comes.

I believe him, actually.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

Just to clarify.

Be afraId! Be very afraId!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Actually, since my state of residence is California and there's no way someone worse than Obama (meaning every Republican candidate including Romney) can win in California, I actually think I won't. I'll make a pledge right here. I'm not voting for Obama. Happy now? You can be certain, however, that I'm not voting for Romney or Santorum or whoever is the antipublican candidate.

I'll vote for Obama because we don't need another Jackass like Bush ( or worse ) in there.

If you'll recall it was basically voter apathy for Gore that let Bush in there in the first place in 2000. That's why it was a close race. We shouldn't ever let that happen again.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination